Among the morality-challenged

Registered nurses George and Tracy Miller, for all
intents and purposes, might seem like an ordinary young couple. They
are professional medical practitioners, are raising an 11-year-old
daughter and 5-year-old son, and — like many people these days — are
trying to better their lot in life any way they can.

But that’s the problem with George and Tracy, as I see it — “trying
to better their lot in life any way they can.”

For these two, that meant creating a pornographic website starring
them in various nude “roles” and “poses.” Ultimately, it also meant
losing their jobs as RN’s in a Phoenix hospital because, rightfully,
administrators there fired them over concerns about how their “business
venture” might affect the reputation of a facility that can’t afford to
be mistrusted. After spending 15 years in the medical field, I can tell
you with certainty that from a public standpoint, perception equals
reality — right, wrong or indifferent.

However, because of the hospital’s decision, George and Tracy are
planning to sue the hospital if they don’t get their jobs back. Plus,
they want their employment records expunged and back pay as well.
They’re claiming the hospital violated their First Amendment rights
because they fired them for engaging in an activity on their own time.

Actually, the hospital fired them for engaging in this particular
activity on their own time — to me, a distinct difference.
Whatever.

They’ll probably win in court anyway because many judges don’t seem
to care what harm the activity of some people causes for others. My
guess is any judge who gets this case will never consider what rights
the hospital is supposed to have to defend and protect its reputation in
the community.

But my biggest beef with these two poster children for the
morality-challenged is not their disregard for the reputation of their
employer — let alone their own reputations — but rather their
attitudes about the whole thing. Neither of them sees anything wrong
with what they’re doing and, ultimately, what they’re exposing their
children to.

“I don’t think it’s immoral,” Tracy Miller told a reporter from the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette August 10. “Some people might think so but
that’s their opinion.”

“It’s the first time we’ve ever done anything like this,” husband
George chirped. “Throughout 14 years of marriage we’ve been monogamous
and continue to be so.”

“I don’t feel they have a right to interfere with what we do on our
own time as long it doesn’t affect our jobs, and as far as nursing, I
feel we always presented ourselves in a professional manner,” Tracy
added.

While the rest of the country — and especially the vehemently
pro-First Amendment mainstream media — wrestles with the question of
whether or not the firing of these two people constitutes a violation of
their rights, I ask instead that you consider the more serious
implications of their behavior and the way they look at their own
behavior.

First of all, you would expect them to defend what they’ve done
because people — no matter how guilty they are — always defend
their own actions first. It’s like a conditioned response; somebody
points a finger at you and you instinctively say, “I didn’t do it!” Bill
Clinton and most of his cabinet comes to mind.

But for this woman — this mother — to claim that hers and
her husband’s behavior is not immoral is almost laughable. Based
on her own parameters, I’d hate to see what she does consider
“immoral.” For instance, what if her own daughter was lured someday
into posing nude for a pervert who has his own porno site? As a mom
who’s “been there and done that,” what do you tell a child who follows
you out of your bra straps?

Also, where are the Child Endangerment Nazis? Is it now OK to host a
porno website that you create in your own home and in the midst of your
own kids, but it’s not OK to smack their rear ends if they behave —
shall we say — “immorally?”

And what about Mr. Porno — George Miller? Mr.
“First-time-for-everything?” How do you like his rationale?
“Oh, well, we’re monogamous so this pornographic sex stuff is OK.”

Well, gee whiz — what is Mr. Porno to do, say, the first time some
young stud touches his daughter sexually — perhaps in a way he saw
George and Tracy touching each other on their very own, First
Amendment-protected World Wide Web site that the kids accessed at the
local public library? “Well, as long as he only touches my
daughter — you know, that he’s monogamous with her — then it’s
OK.”

Furthermore, what does being monogamous have to do with lewd public
behavior?

Memo to George: Buddy, you ought to respect your wife more than that,
for one thing, and for another — you’re supposed to be monogamous
anyway, regardless of any “business venture” you may pursue. If I
was Tracy’s dad, I’d be “surfing” on over to your place and we’d, uh,
“talk” about this.

Finally, Tracy maintains that the couple should be able to do
anything they want on their own time — no matter how outrageous —
without any sort of repercussion from her employer because, like, “we’re
always professional in our jobs.”

Tracy is either ignorant of the hospital’s desire to hire moral,
upstanding professionals to care for their patients or she knows and
understands the hospital’s position but doesn’t care because she and Mr.
Porno are making about 60 thousand bucks from their website. Either way,
she’s a moron if she really doesn’t get it.

As many fine people work tirelessly to keep children away from this
kind of stuff, here are a couple of parents creating exactly the kind of
Internet filth that has so many petrified of this otherwise wonderful
new technology.

The bottom line is that the Millers have a right to be depraved and
morally bankrupt. They don’t, however, have an inherent right to be
morally depraved at the expense of others. With their freedom to behave
inappropriately should come the responsibility of knowing the limits of
the right they seek to exploit.